The National Rifle Association is asking the Supreme Court to strike down decades-old regulations prohibiting the sales of handguns to those under the age of 21.

The powerful gun lobby is challenging a lower federal court’s October ruling that upheld the ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the current regulations are consistent with a long-held view that young adults between the ages of 18 and 20 “tend to be relatively immature and that denying them easy access to handguns would deter violent crime.”

“As with felons and the mentally ill, categorically restricting the presumptive Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds does not violate the central concern of the Second Amendment,” the court found.

The court noted it is legal for adults under the age of 21 to buy other types of guns, including rifles and shotguns. Further, parents or guardians can give their 18 to 20-year-olds handguns as a gift, and there are no laws barring either the possession or use of a handgun by adults younger than 21.
Still, the law’s prohibition of commercial sales of handguns to young adults amounts to a “categorical burden on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” the NRA argued in its petition to the high court, filed last week.*
The group argues that the regulations fly in the face of the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ruling that allows people to carry handguns for self-defense.*

“The Framers’ decision to enshrine the Second Amendment and this Court’s decisions recognizing that the right it secures is both individual and fundamental are decisions with consequences," the NRA wrote in the 224-page petition. “One obvious consequence is that individuals above the legal age of majority cannot be denied any meaningful ability to purchase the quintessential means for exercising the core individual right.”

Officials with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, listed as respondent to the petition, did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment.*

The court could decide as early as Sept. 30 whether or not to take up the case.

Noting that the justices have declined to hear other cases involving firearms, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said it is unlikely that they would grant the NRA's request, particularly because the lower courts have consistently held up current law. Even if they do consider the case, Winkler said he expects the justices would side with the circuit courts, considering that 18 to 21-year-olds have an especially higher than average rates of suicide, criminal behavior and drug and alcohol abuse. "On the other hand, we allow 18-year-olds to bear arms in defense of the nation," he said. "Perhaps they should be allowed to defend themselves."

It's funny to see the people that can't recognize an obvious hyperbole.

People are sick and tired of hearing the gun grabbers and your panty waist big mouth POTUS. Just already.

You are such an aberrant misanthrope and so caustic in your manner. I hope somebody can assuage your anger and you can undergo a metamorphosis that will allow you to recant your inconsequential opinions.

The NRA gave congressman Ballwasher a triple A grade for his continued support of No Child Left Behind Without A Glock program. It's recently come under fire due to the rash of playground shootings involving some criminal elements approaching and attempting to confiscate preschoolers pudding pops. One sound bite that is getting extensive airplay on the internet is a scene where a first grader approached a preschooler and demanded his delicious pudding treat but instead was met with "you want my pop? I'll pop a cap."

NRA has hailed little Johnny as a hero, called him "one of the smartest gun advocates out there for no age restrictions on hand guns," and plan to team him up with Sarah Palin for a 2016 presidential run.

. I think they would have the change the name of the law since Glock would be getting too much credit compared to other firearms manufacturers.

I started to think that 18 y/o was set as mimimum voting age by SCOTUS decision, but that was not the case.

That's like my child telling me to give him something and then he'll earn it. Show the responsibility and then earn the prize. Not the other way around.

That may be fine on an individual level but that isn't AT ALL how the real world works on a societal level. You can't go around coddling young adults and treating them like toddlers then expect them to miraculously "show the responsibility."

The more we lower our standards and expectations the more they will live down to them.

This is not ****ing rocket surgery. Go to damn near ANY other country in the world and watch how they treat young adults like ADULTS and notice the vast difference in maturity.

If you're 18 and you are in a branch of the service, at least you're going to be trained how to safely use the weapon. And the weapon doesn't belong to the 18 year old. It belongs to the particular branch of the service of which they are a member. Big difference.

You are such an aberrant misanthrope and so caustic in your manner. I hope somebody can assuage your anger and you can undergo a metamorphosis that will allow you to recant your inconsequential opinions.

I got news for you, everyone's opinions on here are inconsequential. The fact that I don't fit your PC mold of acceptability is a compliment. Thank you.

That may be fine on an individual level but that isn't AT ALL how the real world works on a societal level. You can't go around coddling young adults and treating them like toddlers then expect them to miraculously "show the responsibility."

The more we lower our standards and expectations the more they will live down to them.

This is not ****ing rocket surgery. Go to damn near ANY other country in the world and watch how they treat young adults like ADULTS and notice the vast difference in maturity.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Basing how children in this society behave compared to lets say Saudi Arabian children behave isn't even comparable to the level you attribute. There are way way way too many extraneous factors involved for everything to be boiled down to simply "they act that way because they are treated differently." We are talking different cultures, political systems, freedoms, opportunities, etc. Sure a case can be made that might have something to do with it, however, your assertion that is the sole case simply can't be proven and I would argue is highly unlikely.

I have mixed emotions on it. On one hand I want to be forgiving and think that once the time has been served for a Crime they should be able to start over but, I’m really not that forgiving.
I have a very liberal friend that was arguing that point in regards to Felons being able to vote. I have no doubt he would not feel the same way about gun ownership with convicted felons. It is a bit of a quandary for me in that I view violet and nonviolent criminals in a completely different light.

Violet criminals are the worst.
It takes a sick brain to break into a greenhouse and violate the violets.